United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO AMEND
Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge.
District Court has referred this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus to United States Magistrate Judge J. Richard
Creatura. The Court's authority for the referral is 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local Magistrate
Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4. Petitioner filed the petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Timothy Robert Petrozzi has filed an amended petition for a
writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 35), stating three grounds for
relief. However, he has not included facts supporting his
grounds for relief and, further, has named several
respondents, none of whom are proper parties because none of
them are his custodian. Therefore, the Court declines to
serve petitioner's habeas petition at this time, but
provides petitioner leave to file an amended petition on or
before August 3, 2018. The Court also notes
that this petition has been pending since August of 2017.
Therefore, the Court will not look favorably on any further
delays to petitioner's case.
initially filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
August of 2017. Dkt.1. After petitioner corrected his
application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 5),
the Court granted him leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Dkt. 6) and filed an order to show cause or
amend the petition by October 27, 2017 (Dkt. 8). The Court
later extended the deadline to December 1, 2017, because
petitioner had been relocated within the Department of
Corrections (“DOC”) and the Court was concerned
that the move may have caused him a delay in filing his
amended petition. Dkt. 10. Petitioner next filed a
“response” to the Court's order, but the
response did not address any of the concerns the Court raised
in its order. Dkt. 12. The Court next extended
petitioner's deadline to February 2, 2018 (Dkt. 23), then
to March 16, 2018 (Dkt. 24), and eventually to May 4, 2018
(Dkt. 27). These extensions were caused by petitioner filing
motions and requests rather than his amended petition, and
the Court giving petitioner additional opportunities to file
his amended petition. See Dkts. 19, 25, 26, 28.
of 2018, petitioner contacted the Clerk's Office, stating
that he was now housed at Western State Hospital and that he
had not received the Court's previous order granting
extension. Dkt. event at 5/22/2018. In light of this, the
Court directed the Clerk to re-send the previous order, and
granted a final extension to June 22, 2018. Dkt. 29.
Petitioner finally filed his amended petition, which was
signed on June 21, 2018. Dkt. 35.
amended petition, petitioner first claims that he is being
denied a particular unspecified process under the American
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and both his
Washington statutory and First Amendment rights are being
infringed. Dkt. 35, p. 5. He next states that his offender
score at sentencing entitled him to a sentencing range of
12-14 months, but that he has served 22 months and has not
yet been released. Id. at p. 7. He finally alleges
there was “error dismissal [sic] although findings were
filed per RAP 15.2 and decision 5.3(a).” Id.
at p. 8. Petitioner names the Thurston County Superior Court,
“Thurston County Corrections, ” the Washington
Department of Social and Health Services
(“DSHS”), and Western State Hospital as
respondents. He asks both that he be released, and that he
receive “judgment for amounts listed in summons and
complaint over 10 million dollars.” Id. at p.
Failure to Comply With Rules Governing Habeas Corpus
Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
“the petition must name as respondent the state
officer who has custody.” (emphasis added).
[t]he petition must: (1) specify all the grounds for relief
available to the petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting
each ground; (3) state the relief requested; (4) be printed,
typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and (5) be signed under
penalty of perjury by the petitioner or person authorized to
sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. §2242.
Id. at Rule 2(c). The petition must
“substantially follow” a form prescribed by the
local district court or the form attached to the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases. Id. at Rule 2(d).
petitioner has named Thurston County Superior Court,
“Thurston County Corrections, ” DSHS, and Western
State Hospital as respondents in his amended petition. Dkt.
35, p. 1. As noted above, the correct respondent in a habeas
petition is the person with custody of petitioner.
Petitioner's original petition indicates that he was
housed both at Western State Hospital and the Thurston County
Jail (see Dkt. 7), and his amended petition
indicates that he is now being housed only at Western State
Hospital (see Dkt. 35). Western State Hospital is a
DSHS facility, and therefore the appropriate respondent is
Cheryl Strange, the Secretary of DSHS.
addition, petitioner has only stated three grounds for
relief, and has included almost nothing to support those
grounds. After simply writing “American's [sic]
with Disabilities Act, ” petitioner's first ground
states in its entirety: “have been denied this process
that I am entitled to per RCWs 10.77.020, 10.77.230,
10.77.240, 1st Amendment by Judge Martin.” Dkt. 35, p.
5. He does not include any further explanation of how the
denial of this process caused him to be convicted unlawfully
or how he is otherwise entitled to habeas relief. Similarly,
his second ground notes that his offender score entitled him
to 12-14 months incarceration, but he has now served 22
months. Id. at p. 7. Though continued incarceration
after a sentence has been fully served would certainly state